Peter Martin wrote: > Don't you just +love+ the idea of a bunch of writers getting together to > argue about > the need for correct spelling and grammar and then disagreeing over (or is it > "about") > the meaning of the word "correct"? > Mind you, I nearly said "guys" instead of writers. But then I could have been upbraided for being sexist. Except that I couldn't really be, because "guys" used to be gender-specific in meaning (in my lifetime) but now it isn't, and is commonly used as a term which includes both (or all three) sexes. So I wanted to be correct. So I said something else. Which suggests we need to be flexible in our writing. Which is what it all gets down to. The issue here seems to be a division between those who want to believe that what they were always taught (or what is in their favourite dictionary) is going to be the case for the foreseeable future, and those who see this approach as being too limiting, and failing to allow for conventions of communication that have already changed. The former folk do not want to meld the changes noted by the latter back into the "standard" but rather, would have such changes excluded from what they see as "correct" usage. I think it's fair to assume that both parties want somehow to preserve efficiency of communication, and would argue that the best way to maximize or optimize communication is to preserve / modify the "correct". Difficulties then arise in a number of different circumstances. In particular, they arise when a new word usage or spelling is incorporated into otherwise shall we say, "pristine" text. If the first test is comprehension, it can be argued that if the offending text is understood without difficulty, then there is no problem. Problems may certainly arise if the new usage/spelling is not understood at all. In some cases, there may also be problems if the new usage causes unintended reader hesitation or confusion. (Let's assume intentional confusion etc is a very special case likely to be very limited in application to literary works, and hardly applicable technical writing.) By an inversion of the labelling process, we might then call the cases of confusion or lack of understanding "incorrect" usages, if you like. The trouble for some people is that the implication then is that any new usage which is understood and does not cause confusion is thereby "correct". Or to put it another way: if it works, why isn't it "correct"? On the spelling front, I really find a lot of discussion in this area increasingly meaningless in a world where Noah Webster is slowing but fairly inevitably winning the battle with Dr Johnson. As I write this, I have a phrase application lurking in the background to suggest words on the basis of the letters I'm typing, and a spelling corrector underlining what it terms misspelled words in a cautionary red. There are times when my cranky anti-authoritarianism takes over, and I insist on leaving the "incorrect" spellings uncorrected and still underlined in red. ("labelling" stares at me still, above. I've resisted "labeling"). But more and more I admit to silent Webster pressure: there are fewer red lines, and I know there will be fewer objections from companies owned by Americans, selling to American companies, or selling to or owned by other people who first learned their English from American sources. And does that really really matter? If, as I suspect, I am now writing for the majority (remembering that most Chinese learn English from US sources), am I not already with the majority? I've said elsewhere and repeat it in this context: these issues are minuscule compared with the problems arising "going forward" when we find leaders who talk modern-day gibberish who want to insist that spelling and grammar tests are what they want to use to judge "outcomes" and "learnings". And my strongest objections to those who go along with politicians' concentration on what I regard as fairly minor matters is that they provide credence to people who are either missing the point of education and communication, or misusing it for their own ends. Meanwhile for those who say nothing changes, I say: Are you gay? Are you stoned? Are you horny? Are you wet? Are you tanked ? Are you a fairy? Are you stuffed? Are you a poof ? Do you have some coke ? a bong ? -- with acknowledgements to Eric Bogle (Silly Slang song) You may be offended, but the chances are you know what I'm talking about. It's not what I could have implied with these words only 50 ago. And one last point. Where spoken language has been to the fore of language change, there's a new kid on the block, SMS. K? -PeterM peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Eric Bogle: They're only words, and words are what we use when we've got sod all to say... ************************************************** To view the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes). To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **************************************************